Talk:Volkswagen Polo

discussion of edits by 81.179.241.125

I've reverted edits by this user for several reasons:

• I do think there was useful information there, but this needs integrating with the existing page, not overwriting it.
• The user's edits completley ignored the useful info already built up
• the text was hardly linked at all, in contrast to that already there
• the style of writing was often unencyclopedic.
• the use of the Mk1...Mk 7 nomenclature, whilst accepted by some polo fans is not universal, and VW themselves use the system previously up there, that is Mk1,Mk1F,Mk2...Mk4f, as does the German wikipedia article. Using both systems in parallel, as at Ford Escort would be Ok, but to use the unoffical system only is not correct.
• Advertising the clubpolo at the end of each paragraph is not what Wikipedeia is about

I would urge this user to join wikipedia as a registered user and contribute to this article. He/she clearly has a lot to contribute, and my revert is based on the need to move the article forward without losing useful information contributed by many people, not a personal attack. I'd suggest more step-wise edits might be more useful. Spute 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User: 81.179.241.125's edits

i've now integrated all the info from User: 81.179.241.125 into the article. It probably needs a bit of tidying up still though. 82.69.4.121 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(after above edit reverted) Actually that (82.69.4.121)was me, i'd just accidentally logged out. All the info added by User: 81.179.241.125 is now integrated into the article, and it was copied and pasted direct from here anyway, so there really is no need to preserve it on this talk page. Spute 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Polo Wagon

The MkII Polo hatchback model was not mistakenly labelled as a Wagon or Estate. That was the actual official name of that version. --Pc13 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistency throughout article & scope.

I've just spend a long while edition some consistency back into this article. Everywhere else in Wikipedia seems pretty consistent on using metric figures - ie PS for power figures, km/h for speed, with common conversions held in brackets. The whole page has had some recent edits which have made the entire article a complete mix, and it was a mess. Not to mention numerous grammatical faults and typographic errors in those recent edits.

I gave up halfway through editing the 6N/2. It's a tedious job, I've got better things to do than waste 2 hours correcting mistakes, which brings me onto part two of this rant.

This article has got too huge, and doesn't scan at all nicely anymore. It's going to throw the casual reader off, and as a result they're not going to read it and go and find something much more interesting. I don't think we need to know the exact history, trim specification and price of each model as it was introduced into the UK; it might surprise some of you, but most wikipedians are not from the UK, even those who speak English. This isn't the place to hold every single item of detail on VW's favourite small car. I think everyone who finds their way to wikipedia can at manage to search out some further information using google, or we can include some more external links. Unless well written and part of highlighting something exceptional, I think we can also skip out power outputs, acceleration figures and top speed - these are difficult to verify, and should someone reading really want to find out the information, it's out there somewhere. Perhaps if we're really desperate for its inclusion, some tables could be built as they're much better for holding data than inline with the text.

Compare this version to the German version, and it shows what can be achieved.James Denson 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

totally agree, there's just too much info here. Maybe it should be split as BMW 3 Series, where that page has overall info, and each individual mark (e.g. BMW E21, BMW E90) has a more detailed page. Spute 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, i'm currently starting a massive edit which will alter the article a lot. Please bear with me, it is not my intention to lose any info, just to improve the structure, as mentioned above. Spute 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for any repetition between the main and separate articles at the moment, i'm trying to sort this out, but it's a big job and I would appreciate any other users' contributions. I'm sure it'll all be much more readable when this is finished.Spute 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I now think the size of the main Polo article is about right. It's much more readable without all the detail about specifications. All of this is in the separate articles i've linked to. I have not deleted any information. I'll now set about editing the MkI, etc articles:

• Volkswagen Polo Mk I
• Volkswagen Polo Mk II
• Volkswagen Polo Mk III
• Volkswagen Polo Mk IV

Spute 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job Spute its is easier to read and a much better layout. Do you need a hand with anything else, I have some more info if needed just message me what you would like expanded on and I'll write something up. Also would wikipedians like Type 6n instead of Mk 3 etc I could go find all type/production no.s if need be.--VWphaetonfan 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Polo name

Does the Polo name mean Polowind, or "polar wind," or is it a sports pun on "Golf?" The origin of the name should definitely be included in the article. Captain Caveman July 14, 2005

It's in there now. Earthlyreason (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

always thought it was just a misspelling of "pollo," i.e., chicken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Performance versions and Motorsport

It's a pretty good summary, though stating that the "The fastest version of the Mk III was the 16V engined model, with 100 PS" is technically inaccurate as there was a limited edition of 3000 6N GTi models sold in Germany with a 120PS 1.6 16v. Also I know it's a summary, but there is no mention of the 6N2 GTi. Redline84 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add these bits of info. I've done a lot of edits to the Polo articles over the last week or so, but there's lots more to add, i know. ( i only introduced the Performance versions and Motorsport section the other day and haven't had time to research much additional info - it mainly pools together what was spread throughout the article). Please contribute what you can, it sounds like you're quite knowledgable about Polos. Thanks.Spute 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

English

I see no problem with adding a clarification for terms that American English speakers may not be familiar with, so I reverted the anon's removal of those clarifications. --DanielCD 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes the article less fluent, it contradicts WP:MOS, and it's completely unessecary because the links point to the articles you want to point out. --217.235.251.131

There's no reason to be anal about it. I read the MOS and there's nothing that says you can't have clarification of that nature. And it doesn't detract from the 'fluency' of the article. However I'll leave them out anyway as this is rather petty to fuss about. --DanielCD 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Polo model designations

These are presently a shambles. VW Golf designations clearly align "generation" with "mk". VW Polo designations presently called "series" as per [1] align with "generations" would be more sensibly called "mk" to be consistent with golf generations. VW body type should be indicated for all models, as it is an unambiguous part of the VW chassis number. --Blouis79 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

VW history media release clearly describes four generations called MkI to MkIV using roman numerals with dates and facelift dates and major features. I have edited the page to reflect this and the variation in naming.--Blouis79 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clean this up a bit more, using Typ numbers and nomenclature found in official VW source (eg. "Mark IV Phase II"), although even VW isn't entirely consistent in this regard, using both Roman and Arabic Mark numbers, and sometimes referring to "nth Generation Polo" rather than "Polo Mark n". I've preserved the alternative "Mark 1 to 7" identification, though made it clear this is unofficial. Letdorf (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Merge discussion

I propose that the article Volkswagen Polo GTI be merged into Volkswagen Polo. While the template may state a direct merger of the two articles, I acknowledge the fact that the sections of Volkswagen Polo GTI refer to the GTI versions of each iteration of the Polo, each of which have their own respective articles. That will subsequently be addressed in the merger, as the information in each section is merged into the appropriate article. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support for merge, also Volkswagen Polo G40 article should be merged, we dont need own article for every engine version --Typ932 ^T·C 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: this article is already 43k, suggest WP:SIZE should be consulted before merging other articles into this one. Letdorf (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Article should be splitted by generations not by engines or trim levels --Typ932 ^T·C 13:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the current article is long. However, that should not significantly affect the merits of the merger. As mentioned before, the majority of the content in Volkswagen Polo GTI will be merged into the subpages of the corresponding generations, and represent themselves on this specific page only in briefest and most concise manners. Instead, we should look at and address the other factors that are contributing to its current size. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I forgot to give an explanation when I first proposed this, so I shall give it now. Due consideration must be given to the precedent set by Volkswagen Golf, where the GTI versions of the aforementioned vehicles do not themselves warrant a discrete article (i.e.: Volkswagen Golf GTI), despite being more notable than the Polo GTI. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I decide that this article should be here to stay due to that we should rename it "Volkswagen Polo G40/GTI". japanesevehicles100 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2011

• Support - no reason to justify a separate article that i can see Jenova20 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - the GTI is just a trim level. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  

• Support - I agree with OSX90.211.11.152 (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea of offering a supercharged high-performance version of what is otherwise a rather mundane small car is sufficiently distinct to justify a separate article. It's far more than "just a trim level" (a remarkably ignorant claim). Would those looking to merge this article next plan to merge the Golf GTi article, given the enormous significance of Volkswagen's GTi brand in establishing the whole "hot hatch" concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - no reason to have this article, just as there is no separate article for Volkswagen Golf GTI. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's not supposed to be seperate: it's a variant version of the Polo. It's a trim level. Now with so many supports against the opposition, it should be merged now! --Chacha15 (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: if anyone is still reading, I also support this. There are far more famous and notable car variants that do not warrant their own article (Golf GTi, Peugeot 205 GTi, Lancia Delta Integrale, Subaru Impreza WRX etc). This is not an enthusiast's forum. Weasley one (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuel economy?

I can't find anything about fuel economy in this article. If it is buried somewhere, it should be made easier to find. If there is in fact nothing on fuel economy, that is a fatal flaw and renders the article essentially useless to most readers. ---Dagme (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this car ever sold in USA

I saw a photo on the internet of the US model but i never seen it in the US. So I wounder if it was ever sold in USA or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)